Center for Science in the Public Interest

[David S]

Center for Science in the Public Interest- freedom fighters or horrible people?

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/120/4239/2006-03-23.asp?wid=120&nid=4239

BUSYBODIES OR TYRANTS?

Thursday, March 23, 2006


Some call the people behind the Washington-D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) busybodies, but I call them wannabe tyrants. Let's look at their agenda, which seeks greater control over our lives.
Last year, CSPI filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce the amount of salt in packaged foods. They also called for the FDA to mandate warning labels on non-diet soft drinks that consumption increases the risk of obesity, tooth decay and osteoporosis. Earlier this year, CSPI announced its intent to sue Viacom Inc. and Kellogg Company for marketing junk food to children.
CSPI has long called for excise taxes on fatty foods, cars and TV sets. Their justification is that obesity adds to Medicare and Medicaid health costs. They want some of the tax revenue used to fund exercise facilities and government fitness campaigns.
There's no end to CSPI's consumer control agenda. They say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." Therefore, they've called for caffeine warning labels. To deal with teenage and adult overconsumption of alcohol, they've called for doubling the tax on beer. According to them, "The last thing the world needs is more drinkers, even moderate ones."
To fight obesity among young people, CSPI calls for a fast-food advertising ban on TV programs seen by children. CSPI's director, Michael Jacobson, said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses, [and] meat," adding that "CSPI is proud about finding something wrong with practically everything."
I'm guessing that most Americans, except politicians, find this control agenda offensive. Politicians might not find it offensive because controlling lives is their stock in trade, plus there's the promise of the higher revenues from food taxes. Most Americans who might find the CSPI agenda offensive are not motivated by principle. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored.
You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" CSPI tyrants are following almost to the letter the template created by the nation's anti-smoking zealots. Their fellow traveler, New York University professor Marion Nestle, says that the food industry "can't behave like cigarette companies. . . . Yet there's a lot of people who benefit from people being fat and sick, and the whole setup is designed to make people eat more. So the response to the food industry should be very similar to what happened with the tobacco companies."
The anti-smoking zealots started out with "reasonable" demands, such as warning labels on cigarette packs and no smoking sections on airplanes. They made exaggerated claims about the cost that smokers were imposing on the health care system. Then cigarette manufacturers faced multimillion-dollar lawsuits and multibillion-dollar local, state and federal extortion, not to mention confiscatory taxes, all of which are passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices.
Just recently, the City of Calabasas, Calif., adopted an ordinance that bans smoking in virtually all outdoor areas. Partial justification is to protect children from bad influences -- seeing adults smoking. Had the anti-smoking zealots revealed their entire agenda back in the '60s and '70s, they wouldn't have gotten much. By using the piecemeal approach, they've been successful beyond their dreams, and the food zealots are following their example.
I'd be interested to know just how many Americans would like to see done to our food industry what was done to the tobacco industry: massive multibillion-dollar lawsuits against food companies; massive suits against restaurants that serve too large a serving, and confiscatory taxes levied on foods and snacks deemed non-nutritious.
Consumers will pay for all of this in the form of higher food prices and fewer choices. There's also the possibility that food zealots in some cities, emboldened by the success of the anti-smoking zealots in Calabasas, who are concerned about smokers passing on bad habits to our youth, might call for an ordinance banning public appearance of obese people so as not to pass bad eating habits on to our children.

 
Walter E. Williams
 Distinguished author and frequent guest on numerous radio and television programs

[Frodo]

Freedom fighters -and the condemnation by a libertarian like Walter Williams sealed the deal for me. 

[MODU]

They're people who believe in their views and are willing to battle for them.  For that aspect, they would be FFs.  Of course, I don't completely agree with them, so they're just "fighters" in my book. 

[Speed of Sound]

I agree with MODU's thinking. Its good theyre willing to fight, but I wish they would fight for something else.

[David S]

Warning labels are ok, assuming the warning is accurate. But adding taxes to food because the CSPI doesn't think we should eat it is not. If I want to eat potato chips until my arteries stop flowing that's my business not theirs.

[David S]

Freedom fighters -and the condemnation by a libertarian like Walter Williams sealed the deal for me. 

You refer to those who would take your freedom as Freedom Fighters and you speak of the man who wants to protect your freedom with disdain.

Does freedom mean to you the right to live your life as you see fit or something else.

[Bacon King]

Marginal freedom fighters, I suppose. I understand where they're coming from, but they're quite excessive at times.

[Nation]

Marginal freedom fighters, I suppose. I understand where they're coming from, but they're quite excessive at times.

About sums my opinion up, as well.

[David S]

Looks like I'm outnumbered 9 to 1 on this, but what the heck Libertarians don't know what its like to be in the majority.

Most of you call the CSPI freedom fighters.
How will the CSPI make you freer?

[John Dibble]

Looks like I'm outnumbered 9 to 1 on this, but what the heck Libertarians don't know what its like to be in the majority.

Most of you call the CSPI freedom fighters.
How will the CSPI make you freer?

David, you get poll results like this because you divided things up with the "FF or HP" thing - the real world doesn't work like that, so expect results that suck. I don't think they're freedom fighters, I disagree with their intentions, but I don't think that makes them horrible people either - so I just didn't vote in this poll myself.

[David S]

Looks like I'm outnumbered 9 to 1 on this, but what the heck Libertarians don't know what its like to be in the majority.

Most of you call the CSPI freedom fighters.
How will the CSPI make you freer?

David, you get poll results like this because you divided things up with the "FF or HP" thing - the real world doesn't work like that, so expect results that suck. I don't think they're freedom fighters, I disagree with their intentions, but I don't think that makes them horrible people either - so I just didn't vote in this poll myself.

John
I don't recall inventing the FF- HP trend. I'm just following suit.

With regard to the post topic, when some organization wants to use the government's power of taxation to force me to do that which I do not want to do, then they fit the HP category.

BTW I do think Americans eat too much junk food and suffer obesity and  illnesses because of it. But the answer should be education not legislation. Warning labels are fine as long as they are accurate. But adding sin taxes or other regulations designed to coerce people into changing their eating habits is a form of tyranny and we should not tolerate it.

[John Dibble]

John
I don't recall inventing the FF- HP trend. I'm just following suit.

Nobody forced you to follow suit - it's not a good way of wording these things since the world isn't that black and white. I really hope this trend will end sometime soon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep in mind that while the two of us do disagree with what they are trying to do, they are honestly filled with the best of intentions. They want to do something they view as good for other people. Because of that I can't really classify them as horrible people, rather I would view them as horribly misguided people.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Very Horrible People.

[David S]

John D

Sorry John, I don't like to disagree with a fellow Libertarian. But when some organization wants to use the power of government to force their will on me I take serious exception. As far as the "best of intentions" goes, the same thing could be said about every big government program that exists today.

This group is laying the groundwork for an anti-junk food campaign similar to the anti-smoking campaign which both you and I have spoken against.

Your banner says it all: Smoking is healthier than fascism.

[John Dibble]

This group is laying the groundwork for an anti-junk food campaign similar to the anti-smoking campaign which both you and I have spoken against.

Your banner says it all: Smoking is healthier than fascism.

Well, I don't consider the anti-smoking nazis horrible people(I know a few in fact, and they are anything but) - the real Nazis were horrible people, these kinds of people are just busybodies at worst.

[David S]

But look at the damage those busybodies can do:
In some states restaurant owners are now told what their smoking policy is. The hell with property rights, the hell with the owner and the hell with his smoking customers.

Imagine similar legislation being enacted for "junk food".
-Get those cheeseburgers off the menu.
-No more french fries. You can only serve baked potatoes with no butter or sour cream.
-No coke or Pepsi, only fruit juice.
-Micky D you can switch to selling tofu or go out of business.
-You can still buy potato chips in the store but there is a 200% tax.

That's where those busybodies will get you.

If CSPI wants to do something non-coercive they could create a label which says something like this:

     "The provider of this food certifies that it is in compliance with CSPI recommendations. It contains no harmful additives."

Then they could allow food suppliers to use the label if they certify that they are in compliance. If the suppliers want to market their food to health conscious individuals they would want to be a able to use the label. (But if they get caught cheating they get sued.)

Food suppliers could produce food that complies and sell it to people who want healthy food. They could still produce junk food for those who want that too. People would be free to choose as well.
That's an all voluntary system- no legislation-no coercion.

[John Dibble]

You're not telling me anything I don't know, David. I just have a firm grip on reality - horrible people are mass murderers(or just plain murderers), rapists, and their ilk. These people, while very annoying and intrusive, can hardly be compared to legitimate horrible people. It's not like these people are out to kill or hurt anyone - hell, their intent is to save lives if nothing else. Do I agree with their methods? Hell no! But when it comes down to it you can't possibly call them horrible. Busybodies yes, jerks maybe, horrible people no.

My point is that the world doesn't even cleave into freedom fighters and horrible people, and we need to stop making these stupid polls that act like it does.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The CSPI need to be destroyed